A
Note from the Author:
What follows are the first few pages of a book-length manuscript on the gay
rights movement, and the whole Gay Question, provisionally entitled: The Ideology
of Desire: The Tyranny and Absurdity of Gay Identity Politics. Although I don't
get into such issues as the nature-nurture debate, the search for the so-called
"gay gene," the Boy Scouts, etc. - all issues covered in the book --
I think this fragment can stand by itself.

The
power of the State has been used as a bludgeon against gay people since at least
the High Middle Ages. The great irony is that, today, as toleration of homosexuality
is growing, the leaders of the gay rights movement seem to be saying: Now it's
our turn.

Their
argument has by now become all too familiar: we have been imprisoned in straight
society, they say, and systematically deprived of the comforts and sympathy owed
to every American. We have been persecuted by the followers of an ascetic - and
vengeful - desert god, and now we demand full status as an officially-approved
victim group, right up there with blacks, women, and other U.S. government-certified
minorities. And if the social mores will not yield to our assault, then we will
use the battering ram of government power to storm the fortress and take the city.
We are victims, and now it is our turn.

The
gay activists of yesteryear demanded that government get out of the bedroom. Today
a new generation of gay leaders is inviting government back in. The political
program of the first activists centered around a campaign to legalize homosexual
relations between consenting adults. Their message to all governments everywhere
was unequivocal: leave us alone. The gay movement of the new millennium has a
different message: far from advocating "hands off!" they want government
to actively intervene on behalf of the homosexual minority. At a time when homosexual
acts are still illegal in several states, the official gay rights movement is
fixated on passing laws that would somehow protect homosexuals from alleged discrimination
in housing and employment. From an essentially libertarian movement, which sought
to minimize the power of government in the sexual realm, gay organizations and
leading spokespersons are today calling for the expansion of state power over
nearly every aspect of our lives. This reversal is all the more remarkable because
it took place in a relatively short period of time, less than a decade.

The birth of the
gay liberation in America as a mass movement can be dated precisely: June 27,
1969, when, late in the evening, the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in
Manhattan, resisted a police attempt to close the place down. For three days a
neighborhood rebellion effectively kept the cops from carrying on the ancient
tradition of shaking down gay bars and busting the ones that didn't pay up. In
the official complaint, the (admittedly somewhat shady) operators of the Stonewall
Inn were cited for not having a liquor license. The reality, however, is that
even if they had applied, it is doubtful their request would have been granted:
the state bureau that handed out the licenses was notoriously hostile to gay establishments.
The first modern gay liberationists, then, were rebelling against government regulation.
The logic of their protest, if applied consistently and carried to its ultimate
conclusion, would have led to a demand for the dismantling of the economic and
moral regulatory apparatus residing in government. But something happened along
the way to divert the gay movement from its original spirit and goal. A central
idea of gay liberation, as it was first conceived, was liberation from government.
Today, the so-called gay rights movement sees government as the agency, not the
enemy, of liberation. From socialized medicine to anti-discrimination legislation
to mandatory "tolerance" lessons in the schools - there is not a single
scheme to increase the power of the Washington bureaucracy that these alleged
liberationists do not endorse. How do we account for this radical about-face?

Part of
the explanation is that much of the momentum for the gaylib movement came from
the counterculture, and its political expression: the New Left of the sixties.
Moving into reformist mode by the time the eighties rolled around, the leftist-dominated
gay leadership fixated on passing anti-discrimination ordinances at the local
level, an idea that was eventually incorporated into the politically correct canon
of straight liberals.

"Homophobia"
and the Marginalization of Traditional Values

This
legislative agenda was not a reformist water-down of the original, but a complete
inversion, a betrayal of not only the style but the meaning of the Stonewall rebellion.
In heedless pursuit of this agenda, what was once a crusade for tolerance has
itself degenerated into a major source of crankish intolerance. In every
important sense, the gay rights movement has become the mirror image of the Religious
Right - or, at least a caricaturized version of the Religious Right -- appealing
directly to the State to actively promote its view of homosexuality in the schools
and the arts. Since both of these areas are dominated by government, they are
fair game for the various victim groups that lay claim to their "fair share"
of the pie.

Anyone
who questions this agenda is immediately branded "homophobic," and is
not only smeared but targeted and pursued to the very ends of the earth. The entire
state of Colorado faced a vicious attack, as prominent figures of the Hollywood
Left, such as Barbara Streisand, led the jihad against the state that dared repeal
its gay rights laws by popular referendum. The advocates of this referendum were
widely reviled as hate-mongers by their opponents, and portrayed by the national
media as unabashed bigots. When Colorado voters approved the measure, gay activists
started a boycott aimed at what they deemed "the hate state." Colorado,
they averred, had fallen victim to one of the worst forms of thoughtcrime, the
dreaded and malignant "homophobia."

Just
as homosexuals had to endure the medicalization of their "disease" when
the gay subculture was first noticed by the nascent fields of psychotherapy and
sex research, so today the advocates of traditional values, particularly those
who take their Christianity seriously, are subjected to the same diagnosis of
a pseudo-medical disorder. The theorists of homophobia have developed an elaborate
analysis of this newly-discovered condition, one which seem to include all or
most heterosexuals. The inventor of the term, George Weinberg, defines it as "the
dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." Weinberg sees several
sources of homophobia, among them repressed homosexuality, envy, and disapproval
of groups and individuals outside the traditional nuclear family structure. His
theme of repressed homosexuality, and homophobia as a "reaction formation"
- a fear and hatred of one's secret desires - is borrowed from Freud, and is all
of a piece with the Freudian dogma positing a strong link between paranoia and
same-sex love: Freud clearly considered homosexuality to be a form of mental maladjustment.

As for
the envy factor, this may well be true. If so, it certainly contradicts the carefully
cultivated image of the homosexual-as-victim projected by the gay rights lobby.
For if large numbers of heterosexuals are envious of gays, then there must be
some advantage enjoyed by homosexuals; how likely is it that any ordinary person
would envy a member of an oppressed and downtrodden class? Hostility to sexual
arrangements in which procreation is not the central organizing principle of the
relationship fails to explain the lack of hostility to childless heterosexual
couples.

In
practice, homophobia seems to mean any actions or words that displease certain
homosexuals. Not your average, everyday garden-variety gays, but the denizens
of the organized gay lobby. There is, in fact, a specialized organization, the
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), that has taken upon itself
the role of guardian and monitor of the gay community's image. The recipient of
big money from the Hollywood Left, and boasting a network in virtually every major
city in the country, GLAAD's hypersensitive antennae scan the skies for signs
of homophobia in the media. In regular alerts to its members, and in the pages
of gay newspapers from coast to coast, GLAAD publishes the addresses and phone
numbers of transgressors, and urges its supporters to complain.

Such
groups as People for the American Way and other left-oriented "civil liberties"
organizations pull in millions of dollars from liberals worried about the much-vaunted
threat of the so-called Religious Right. This myth of neo-Puritan fundamentalists
intent on ransacking America's libraries, and purging all traces of sexuality
from public life, is central to the demonology of modern liberalism, the bogeyman
at the center of their worst nightmare. How ironic, then, to contemplate the implications
of an epistle from San Francisco's GLAAD that denounced the March-April 1994 issue
of the Video Librarian for daring to recommend Gay Rights, Special Rights,
a video distributed by the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). The following quote
from the Video Librarian reviewer is GLAAD's idea of rampant homophobia:

"It would
be easy to dismiss Gay Rights, Special Rights as another rabid, right-wing
piece of propaganda, except for the serious and valid argument at its core: Should
gays and lesbians be accorded minority group status and thereby gain civil rights
protections?"

This
attempt at a balanced discussion is considered so self-evidently homophobic that
Al Kielwasser, local GLAAD guru, did not even bother to explain why he thought
it was so. Readers were merely urged to "send much-needed feedback"
to the publisher of the Video Librarian.

Clearly,
the intent of GLAAD is to make sure that the nation's libraries are cleansed of
material they consider potentially harmful. But why stop with such obviously partisan
polemics as the TVC video? Why not extend the proscription of anything deemed
anti-gay to the local library's current inventory of books? Just think: we could
build a bonfire in which the works of Freud, and all the saints in heaven, would
be consigned to the flames. It would be as good an excuse as any to torch the
complete works of, say, Norman Podhoretz or Pat Buchanan - and even the books
of some gay writers whose loyalty to the cause might be found wanting.

All expressions
of the idea that homosexuality is in any sense a choice are immediately and vehemently
protested by GLAAD as "homophobic," in spite of the considerable dissension
on this subject not only among reputable scientists, but also among gays themselves.
In the absence of any scientific proof for the gay determinist hypothesis, articles
in the press suggesting another view would advance our knowledge of this area
by at least carrying the discussion forward. But if the gay ayatollahs of GLAAD
have anything to do with it, then those articles will never be published and there
will be no discussion. As an example of their dogmatic hectoring, a June 1995
missive from GLAAD berated syndicated gossip columnist Liz Smith for referring
to Chastity Bono's "sexual preference":

"Of
course, most mainstream journalists have begun to use the more accurate terminology,
'sexual orientation.' 'Preference' carries the unfortunate implication that lesbians
and gay men can be changed; it's a term that appeals to the homophobic imagination,
in which evil queers prefer immorality over righteousness."

In
it's perpetual attempts to intimidate editors, writers, publishers, and movie
producers, GLAAD is representative of that curious anomaly of the new millennium:
the illiberal liberal. The irony, and the great danger, is that GLAAD is endorsed
and subsidized by alleged proponents of "free expression" and openness
-- whose money is going to subsidize a new and politically correct version of
the Library Police.

In
1980, GLAAD's campaign against the movie Cruising demonized this realistic
drama as heterosexist propaganda dedicated to the proposition that, as gay film
historian Vito Russo put it, "homosexuality is not only contagious but inescapably
brutal." The militant movie mavens of GLAAD reached a crescendo of shrillness
in the controversy over Basic Instinct, an elegant movie about a murderess
with lesbian tendencies. GLAAD's moral and aesthetic standards are sub-moronic:
if a gay character in a movie or television drama is portrayed in a less than
flattering light, or even ambiguously, it is GLAAD's cue to get out the picket
signs.

This
campaign to sanitize homosexuality in the movies soon expanded to include an organized
effort to inculcate GLAAD's view of the subject in public school textbooks. In
California, GLAAD chapters were urged to attend meetings of the State Board of
Education's ad hoc "Committee on Hate/Violence," which is, we are told,
"an important platform of curriculum reform." The strategy is to piggyback
onto the current campaign against racially-motivated "hate crimes" in
the public schools: "Given the committee's focus, the public can demand the
Board's attention to the role that textbooks can - and must - play in combating
homophobia. After all, unless the Board of Education begins to spend tax dollars
on books that include fair and accurate information about lesbians and gays, our
schools will continue to teach a curriculum of hate and violence."

What could be clearer
than this clarion call for state-subsidized gay propaganda aimed at children?
As a parent put it at a meeting of the Queens (New York) School Board Distict
28, in reference to the imposition of New York City's infamous "Rainbow Curriculum":
"Remember that the Children of the Rainbow [teacher's manual] specifically
tells teachers that in all subjects they are to mention the gay and lesbian lifestyle.
This means that in math, reading, and writing, our children will have to hear
about this. And remember, this is the first grade." The whole process, he
correctly concluded, amounts to "indoctrination."

These
parents want to know why homosexuality must be discussed in the schools at all.
Gay activists answer: because we are victims. Violence against homosexuals is
endemic in this society, and it is the responsibility of the public schools to
prevent this by promoting "tolerance."

Christian
fundamentalists and other advocates of traditional morality, in opposing social
engineering projects such as New York City's "Rainbow Curriculum," declared
that homosexuals were trying to recruit innocent young children into their ranks.
But they needn't have worried. For the insipid and defensive propaganda of the
tolerance brigade would only serve to repulse the very students who might be inclined
toward homosexual behavior. What budding young homosexual would not sneer in derision
upon being told he has to do a book report on Daddy's Roommate or Gloria
Goes to Gay Pride? Such drivel would not recruit anyone, not even the likeliest
candidates, and instead would have the opposite effect. Deprived of the aura of
rebellion and the forbidden, the allure of homosexuality would practically vanish.
Stripped of its otherness, homophilia would soon lose a good deal of its erotic
charge, at least for a great many potential practitioners. The irony of the gay
activist agenda in the schools is that its full implementation would eventually
result in considerably fewer homosexuals. Perhaps GLAAD and the fundamentalists
- who have more in common than is at first apparent - can get together on this
one.